controversial

WHEN Ferne McCann said she wanted followers who were “coachable and consistent and quietly sick of where they are” to join her business, nearly 3,000 people replied that they were ready.

The former Towie star, 36, didn’t however say what the opportunity actually was or what it involved – instead claiming it pays for her family’s security and her daughter’s education – and can even be done around a full- time job. 

The business in question? Ferne wants you to join her and become an independent distributor for the controversial company Herbalife.

For nine years Ferne has been encouraging people to sign up for the global multi-level marketing (MLM) corporation that develops and sells dietary supplements. 

But behind the glossy facade troubling questions have been asked about the multi-billion pound company.

Herbalife was once regularly pushed by reality stars, but now Ferne is among a handful, alongside Danielle Armstrong, who continues to work with them after a string of concerns.

From the very beginning, Herbalife was a direct-selling company, peddling products to the public through a network of members.

Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of other companies – such as cosmetics giant Avon – have the same model.

Where Herbalife has attracted criticism, however, is in their own particular version of the model.

In the past, members would receive money not just from selling products, but also from bonuses following sales made by new members they had recruited to the brand. New recruits were encouraged to buy a substantial amount of starter ‘inventory’, which meant the person who recruited them earned commission straight away even if the products had not yet sold.

But in 2016 the company was subject to a two-year investigation by America’s Federal Trade Commission.

They concluded that the structure incentivized recruitment over actual retail sales. Herbalife was ordered to pay £147million compensation and told to revamp its compensation structure so that distributors are rewarded for what they sell, instead of fundamentally rewarding recruiting over actual retail sales.

Since the ruling, the recruiter will only get paid commission after the new recruit actually sells those products to real customers and shows receipts.

The ruling did little to quell the fears of some that Herbalife still peddled unrealistic dreams to those who could least afford them.

And despite concerns, last month Ferne was busy recruiting again – sparking outrage and concern amongst ‘victims’ of MLM schemes in the past, who felt she had failed to declare she would be earning money if people signed up and started selling.

A spokesperson for Herbalife confirmed she would not make money just from people being recruited, which appears to be a common misconception about the company.

They said: “Many distributors simply sell products to consumers at a profit. Those who choose to can build their businesses further by coaching their own sales teams of independent distributors and earn a commission on their sales as well as their own. Herbalife distributors are not paid to recruit new members – a practice which is illegal in most countries globally.”

In a surprising move, Ferne admits that MLMs are ‘vague’ but doesn’t explain why – or indeed spell out her business model.

Alongside a series of glam images of herself, Ferne wrote: “Almost 9 years ago I joined a business I didn’t fully understand, with a baby on the way and no plan B.

“Today it pays for my girls’ education, it’s given my family a level of security I didn’t think was an option for me any more.

“I want to be real with you about what this is, because I think the MLM industry does itself no favours by being vague!

“It is flexible. You genuinely can build it from your phone, around school runs, around a full-time job, around whatever your life currently looks like. That part is true and it’s why I’m still here.

“I’m looking for people who are properly ready. People with a work ethic. People who are coachable and consistent and quietly sick of where they are. If that’s you, you already know it.

“I’ll train you, I’ll be in your corner, and I’ll show you exactly what I do.”

There was no direct mention of Herbalife or how anyone signing up, or indeed Ferne, would actually be financially rewarded. I took the plunge and followed the others, who mostly appeared to be women, by writing I was ‘ready’.

I instantly received a DM telling me: “There’s never been a better time to start, it’s exploding…we have such a slick system for anyone who’s ready.”

There was also an invite to watch a 20 minute Information Opportunity Video, hosted by Ferne, which is the point where I got cold feet.

Hundreds will no doubt be desperate to join – tempted by the promise of being able to work around the school run. 

There are clearly still some concerns. Many followers were shocked to see Ferne promoting an MLM, with one person remarking: “It’s so disingenuous isn’t it. She knows that her downline won’t be as successful as her, because the only reason she has a decent downline herself is due to her being a celeb and having followers that way.”

Finding someone willing to talk about their experience with Herbalife is tricky – there appears to be a wall of silence surrounding former distributors. 

One woman, who didn’t want to be named, told me how there have been issues with the company for decades and she lost around £15k when she signed up back in the nineties. 

She explained: “I signed up through an old work colleague who looked like they were making good money. 

“Little did I know they were doing it by piling stock onto the people they signed up, encouraging them to get to the next level or event.

“I trusted them and had no experience of MLM before and thought well if she can do it so can I.”

But it was far from an easy ride.

“Hindsight is a great thing isn’t it?” she said. “I lost around £15k I’d say over a two-year period of trying to make it work. I never encouraged customers to do what I did and that’s maybe why it didn’t work as it did for my referrer. I couldn’t sit with people getting into massive amounts of debt so I could earn commission.”

More recently there have been a lot more stories of MLM nightmares.

Laura Whitby, creator of The Nuance Nurse, with several years’ experience in network marketing and direct selling, spoke out after seeing Ferne’s post.

She still works within the direct selling industry but believes the criticism of MLMs is ‘justified’. She has not worked with Herbalife.

She explained: “I spent nearly three years with another company selling thousands of pounds of products every month. But between the money I was spending maintaining rank and trying to qualify for commissions, I barely earned anything.

“Three years of work, thousands of pounds spent, and God knows how many hours. I’ll never get back. And that’s where I want to discuss the difference between network marketing and community commerce. Because in my experience of MLMs, you open your back office and there’s quite literally a group of people with you at the top.

Laura added: “If a business is supposedly about selling products, why is there so much emphasis on recruiting people? And when we’ve got celebrities with enormous platforms promoting these opportunities, I think we need to be asking some serious questions about what they’re actually signing up for.”

Herbalife have denied this is the business model they are using.

The company is a long way from its humble beginnings.

It was founded in 1980 by diet product salesman Mark Hughes who formulated his own protein shake.

The business which he first ran from the boot of his car quickly snowballed and by 2011 its sales had grown to more than £3bn in around 90 countries.

The investigation by America’s Federal Trade Commission in 2016 was a minor setback.

It ruled that it had operated unfairly, cheating hopeful salespeople out of hundreds of millions of pounds with its high-pressure multi-level marketing scheme.

FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez branded Herbalife’s sale of a “dream” career working from home as “an illusion” and many members “made nothing or lost money on their initial investment”.

And as one bruised former distributor put it: “I would be very wary of something that sounded too good to be true!”

Italy’s parliament is voting on Thursday on a new electoral law that would make it easier for election winners to form a majority government.

The law, proposed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, would award extra seats to any party or coalition that obtains more than 42 percent of seats in both parliamentary chambers, ensuring it holds a majority.

Meloni has framed the legislation as a route to greater stability in Italy’s political system, which has often been run by fragile coalition governments. Her critics, however, say the move is actually aimed at boosting her own chances in elections next year.

Here’s what we know about the electoral law and what it means for Italian politics:

What is Italy’s current electoral system?

Italy currently has a mixed electoral system for its 600-seat parliament, with about 36 percent of members of parliament elected directly in constituencies where the candidate with the most votes wins, and the rest decided through proportional representation.

The system, called “Rosatellum”, has been in place since 2017. It encourages coalition-building but can produce fractured results that make a governing majority hard to forge.

What would the new law change?

The new legislation would replace the mixed electoral system with a fully proportional one, as well as awarding extra seats to the party or coalition that wins the most seats if it secures at least 42 percent in both chambers.

The bonus would be as many as 70 seats in the 400-member Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, and up to 35 seats in the Senate, which has 200 elected members.

That means if a party or coalition meets the 42 percent share threshold in both chambers, it would have stronger power to govern. If no party or coalition meets the threshold, representation would be decided proportionally.

The new law would also force coalitions to announce their candidates for prime minister before the elections. Rado Fonda, head of research at Italian pollster SWG, told the Reuters news agency this provision could “prove problematic for the centre-left, potentially forcing an early leadership contest and exposing divisions that could weaken the bloc”.

Meloni, who currently leads the country’s longest-serving government since World War II, has said the reform will help stabilise the country rather than serve any one political group. “Whoever wins the elections will have the numbers to govern,” she said.

What stage is the legislation at?

The proposed law has already been approved by the Senate and must now undergo a final secret-ballot vote in the Chamber of Deputies.

Giovanni Orsina, a political scientist at Rome’s Luiss Guido Carli University, predicted that the law is “extremely likely” to pass.

If it fails, Meloni has said she will resign.

Why is the legislation controversial?

Opponents say the law is undemocratic because it could potentially grant a winning coalition a disproportionate level of power in parliament.

They also say that the legislation is intended to favour Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party (Fdl) is bracing for a tough election battle next year.

Riccardo Magi, head of the liberal More Europe party, who is on a hunger strike to protest the proposed reform, has called it an “anti-democratic law” that risks giving a minority bloc a huge majority in parliament.

Senator Matteo Renzi, who leads the Italia Viva party, has accused Italy’s governing coalition of pushing the electoral reform due to a fear of losing power.

Other critics have pointed out that the law would do little to stabilise the political system if no party or coalition reaches the 42 percent threshold in both chambers – a relatively high bar.

“This could produce a hung parliament, making post-electoral negotiations necessary to form a government,” Vincenzo Emanuele, a political science professor at Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome and a member of the Italian Center for Electoral Studies (CISE), told Al Jazeera. “Even relatively small changes in coalition composition could make the difference between a clear parliamentary majority and a situation of political deadlock.”

When are Italy’s next elections, and what do the polls show?

Italy’s next general election must be held by December 22, 2027, although the government can call elections earlier if it wishes.

Currently, Meloni’s Fdl is polling ahead of all other parties, with 27 percent support, according to Politico’s polling aggregator. Her coalition partners, Lega and Forza Italia, have a combined 12 percent support, according to Politico, bringing the coalition share to 39 percent.

Fdl’s polling has been dented by support for a new far-right group, Futuro Nazionale (National Future), Reuters reported. It currently has 7.8 percent support, according to Italian polling institute SWG.

In opposition, the Democratic Party (PD) has 21 percent support, the Five Star Movement (M5S) has 12 percent and the Alliance of Greens and Left (AVS) has 6 percent, according to Politico. The Italy Viva (IV) and More Europe parties have 2 percent support each.

Emanuele said the current landscape means the proposed electoral law would not necessarily favour Meloni and could even benefit the opposition.

He said recent simulations by the CISE have shown that a centre-left coalition including the PD and M5S could potentially reach 44 percent of the vote, securing a “comfortable parliamentary majority”, though that could change if Meloni allies with National Future.

“The reform does not inherently favour the incumbent government: Its effects will depend crucially on how the competing coalitions are formed,” said Emanuele.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has scrapped controversial plans to curb some jury trials.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government had introduced proposals to allow judges to make the sole decision on cases that would lead to a sentence of less than three years.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said only complex fraud and financial offences would be judge-alone – and it proposes that thousands of medium-level crimes should stay with volunteer magistrates, who sit without a jury.

Justice Secretary Alex Norris said he had changed course came after hearing the “strength of feeling”. Criminal lawyers have welcomed the decision and the Conservatives say it is a “major victory” for those who fought to defend trial by jury.

Former Justice Secretary David Lammy first announced the plans in December following a recommendation in a major review of the court system in England and Wales.

The series of radical reforms, including scaling back jury trials, were presented as the best way of turning around record backlogs which, in turn, were exacerbating the prison population crisis.

The backlog – which has led to record delays for defendants and victims – currently stands at nearly 81,000 cases – having rocketed largely thanks to cuts before the pandemic and court closures during the national lockdowns. Official projections have estimated it could reach 100,000 before the next general election and, in a worst case scenario, climb to double that number by 2035.

There are, however, indications the backlog is now stabilising after the government committed unlimited funding to pay for more judges to sit in courts that were otherwise being unused.

Under the original plans, Lammy had wanted to reserve jury trials for the most serious “indictable” offences – meaning cases that are always sent to Crown Court, including murder and rape.

Less serious offences, where the sentence would be no more than three years, would be decided without a jury in the Crown Court by a judge alone. Even less serious offences would stay in magistrates’ courts, abolishing defendants’ right to ask for a trial by jury when they feel that is their best chance of beig cleared.

The proposals triggered an outcry across many parts of the criminal justice world, with many opponents saying that eroding the 800-year-old right to trial by jury would not solve the backlogs.

OLIVIA Attwood has a lot to celebrate – she has cracked the luxury drinks market. Her booze brand Savano is now being stocked in Selfridges as part of a seven figure acquisition.

But we can reveal that behind closed doors, the 35-year-old has found herself in hot water after the truth about the brand was revealed.

The reality star has been subject to complaints to the advertising watchdog ASA for glamorising smoking and drinking in controversial ads.

This summer, Olivia launched Savano, marketing it as a premium, ready-to-drink canned cocktail brand. 

Promoted heavily across her Instagram and TikTok to her 3.2 million followers, Savano was positioned as the ultimate beverage accessory, inspired by Olivia herself. 

Fans have naturally rushed to support what they believed was Olivia’s brand-new, ground-up entrepreneurial venture.

But there was one crucial piece of information that some followers felt Olivia had withheld.

Savano is not an entirely original creation dreamt up by the reality star. Instead, it is actually a strategic relaunch of an already existing product line called Tom Savano.

And we can reveal that she has gone a step too far when it came to pushing the product – the Advertising Standards Authority received a number of complaints over two social media posts which they said made out smoking was cool and alcohol has “therapeutic qualities”.

A celebrity endorsing a product on Instagram is obviously allowed, but they have to make it clear that it is a paid-for advert and usually use the hashtag #ad.

Even after the ASA complaint involving her ‘informally resolved’, Olivia has still got posts up without the #ad hashtag.

In one post, she’s seen crouching down next to a pool with a can of Savano, captioned: “wtf my horoscope keeps telling me to go off the rails”. 

While in another, she’s sunbathing on a luxury yacht with another can in her hand. 

Plus, one shows her in a bikini with just her cleavage and bikini top showing with a Savano can in front and the caption saying: “Boating with my baby @savano”.

A spokesperson said ASA was forced to intervene for this glamorisation.

A statement said: “We received complaints about two Instagram posts on Olivia Attwood’s account promoting Savano drinks.

“The complainants challenged whether the posts were irresponsible by glamourising smoking, implying that alcohol had therapeutic qualities and encouraging styles of drinking that were unwise.

“They also challenged whether the posts were obviously identifiable as ads.”

As Olivia was compliant with ASA, the situation was “informally resolved” without any further action.

A statement added: “We approached the advertiser about the issues that had been raised and they agreed resolve these issues without being subject to a formal ruling.

“Because of this we closed the case informally, without the need for a formal investigation.”

Olivia has even roped new man Pete Wicks in to help plug the brand – she shocked her followers as she posted images of herself with her legs wrapped around him – with a Savano in hand.

An insider commented: “It was a masterclass in marketing. Olivia is being as open as ever with her life and is being very business savvy at the same time. 

“Some people might find it a bit icky that she’s using her new romance to promote her brand, but it just makes sense for her.”

This sudden, intense oversharing has fascinated her followers and relationship experts. 

Celebs Go Dating expert Dr Tara Suwinyattichaipor said: “It could be because it’s good PR but also to claim their love and the strength of their relationship with the public unapologetically. It’s not a bad sign to want to show off your partner when you’re deep in love!”

Savano is not an entirely original creation dreamt up by the reality star. Instead, it is actually a strategic relaunch of an already existing product line called Tom Savano.

Founder James Kerslake sold his brand in March of this year to UK drinks producer Babco International for an undisclosed amount.

And just four months later, Olivia announced Savano to the world.

The brand had undergone a facelift, dropping the “Tom” for a punchier, simplified name, and brought Olivia on board as a celebrity partner to front the glossy new image.

Celebrity endorsements and partnerships are par for the course in the influencer world, but  many felt the marketing made it appear as a solo passion project built from scratch. 

My business insider said: “Everyone was a bit miffed when Olivia bought out Savano, with no mention of it already being a brand.

“It’s done really well but it’s perhaps less surprising considering it was already well established and sold in Sainsburys.

“The original founder put his blood, sweat and tears into it before selling it on. He of course had no idea that Olivia would be taking over and becoming the face of it all.

“It’s all been a whirlwind for everyone involved but people are wondering why Olivia hasn’t mentioned it’s past. It all feels a bit cloak and dagger.”

James Kerslake launched Tom Savano in 2018 and was making six figures in profits while still doing his day job. 

Business owner – named Fran Gresswell who owns Riviera Iced Tea – shared a video on TikTok regarding Savano’s origins. 

Fran told us: ‘When Olivia announced Savano the name instantly reminded me of Tom Savano cocktails. A few weeks later the parent company who purchased Tom Savano announced they had launched Savano so I put it together. 

“This is often the case with celebrity brands who partner with companies who will operate the brand for them and often hold a significant or majority stake. It’s something I think people are often unaware of! I think it’s a genius marketing move by Babco International to bring Olivia onboard.”

Fans were outraged, with one commenting: “How is she sat there saying it’s been in the works for a year it’s MY cocktail brand when it’s literally an established brand with the same flavours lmaoooo. Very disingenuous.”

Another added: “The lack of transparency is disappointing tbh.”

While someone else commented: “I just don’t like the way she’s promoting it as if she invented it. They basically rebranded it and they taste exactly the same.”

But not taking this lying down, the successful businesswoman hit back and set the record straight.

“My brand, Savano, my baby. It was acquired by my partners, it existed as Tom Savano, and then with me, we relaunched it,” Olivia told her fans in an Instagram video.

“We re-marketed it, we renamed it, we repackaged it, and we developed signature flavours. For example, my Moscow Mule. Guys, do you even understand how many Moscow Mules I had to drink to get that right? And it’s perfect.

“With me as the majority stakeholder and my team working seven days a week on my baby, in a matter of months, we have made Savano a household name.” 

Cheers to that!

The police prevented an early morning attempt by the Orange Order to make a controversial parade down a road which had previously been blocked by protesters.

A group of men tried to march from Drumcree Church down the mainly-nationalist Garvaghy Road in Portadown in the early hours of Monday but a line of police Land Rovers stood in the way.

They had been unable to make the permitted parade on Sunday morning because protesters had gathered on the Garvaghy Road. The stand-off continued throughout Sunday, with the Orangemen waiting at the church, around a mile from the road, for the go-ahead from police.

Sinn Féin First Minister Michelle O’Neill joined the protest, prompting Democratic Unionist Party leader Gavin Robinson to accuse her of acting unlawfully.

Northern Ireland Secretary Sir Chris Bryant called for “compromise”.

Breandán Mac Cionnaith, from the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition, said he was meeting the secretary of state and chief constable on Monday, and that he would not prejudge those conversations.

Nigel Dawson, who is the Orange Order’s Portadown district master, told BBC News NI there was frustration.

He said they had a legal right to parade down the Garvaghy Road and the police should facilitate their route.

“We have been open and honest, and were seeking mediation to seek a resolution suitable to both sides that would bring this to a successful conclusion,” he added.

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Carla Lockhart, who came back to Drumcree in the early hours of Monday, said the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s chief constable needed “to take a grip of this very quickly or his position will become untenable”.

The Drumcree parade, which in the 1990s sparked some of the most serious disorder in Northern Ireland’s history, was due to go ahead for the first time in 30 years after a series of legal challenges.

Since 1998, the Orange Order had been banned from completing its Drumcree march – and until this year had been repeatedly refused permission to finish the route by the Parades Commission, which was set up to adjudicate disputes.

The Orange Order is a Protestant pro-British organisation, while the area where it wants to walk – specifically along the Garvaghy Road – is largely Catholic and predominantly inhabited by pro-Irish nationalists.

Ireland’s players wore black armbands in support of Palestinians, bowed their heads during the Israeli anthem, and refused pre-match handshakes.

The Republic of Ireland has won the first of two football matches against Israel at the UEFA Nations League, defeating the Israeli team 3-0 after calls to boycott the match drew international attention.

Ireland’s players wore black armbands at the game in Hungary on Sunday in support of Palestinians killed during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Irish players also bowed their heads during Israel’s national anthem and did not shake the hands of the Israeli team. Ireland’s captain, Dara O’Shea, has also pledged to donate all of his earnings from the match to aid Gaza.

On Saturday, Football Association of Ireland (FAI) chief executive David Courell said the players would wear black armbands “in recognition of all lives lost in the conflict” as he confirmed that the match would take place after hours of talks and a vote among the team. Israel was informed in advance by the FAI that Ireland’s players would not shake hands, and UEFA accepted the arrangement.

After the FAI confirmed that it would participate in the match, the Republic of Ireland’s first-choice goalkeeper, Gavin Bazunu, became the only player to publicly opt out of the fixture.

Bazunu posted a statement on social media on Saturday, saying he felt “it would be wrong to participate in the upcoming fixtures against Israel”.

He withdrew from both legs of the fixture, including the next match set to take place on October 4 in Backa Topola, Serbia.

The match on Sunday proceeded despite months-long pressure on the FAI to boycott the match due to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Since May, leading Irish footballers have joined a campaign run by Irish Sport for Palestine, urging Ireland to boycott the match against Israel. More than 160 Irish athletes signed an open letter urging the FAI to reconsider its decision to proceed with the games.

The campaign says Israel has breached UEFA and FIFA statutes by allowing teams to play on occupied Palestinian land and should be stripped of its membership at both football bodies.

Voting rights groups have warned system may falsely identify voters as non-citizens, leading to disenfranchisement.

The United States Supreme Court has allowed the administration of US President Donald Trump to use a controversial voter verification system just weeks away from the midterm election in November.

The court’s emergency order on Friday allows the Department of Homeland Security to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, programme in its efforts to verify the eligibility of voters on state voter rolls.

Voting rights groups have argued the use of the system, which was revamped under the Trump administration in 2025, risks falsely identifying individuals as non-voters, potentially leading to individuals being wrongfully purged from voter rolls.

Those challenging the administration’s use of the database have charged that information on citizenship can be out of date. They pointed to a Travis County, Texas election official who found that up to 25 percent of the “non-citizens” identified by the system in the jurisdiction were in fact US citizens.

US states oversee election administration under the country’s constitution and are not required to use the SAVE system, but several Republican-led state governments have voluntarily opted to use the database.

Still, it was not immediately clear if Friday’s decision would have any meaningful impact on the midterm elections on November 3, in which voters will determine which parties control the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

Existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters from their rolls within 90 days of an election. The emergency order is not also the final say on the matter, only granting the administration the ability to use the system until the court makes a final ruling.

The three liberal justices on the panel, which has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, issued a dissenting opinion, saying the majority disregarded “the harms that the modified SAVE system has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters”.

The Citizens for Ethics watchdog group charged that the decision “puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the admin’s unreliable voter purge system weeks before the midterms”.

Trump has focused heavily on election administration in the run-up to the midterm vote, which could serve as a major check on his authority in the final two years of his term.

He has for years claimed, without evidence, that US elections are marred by widespread fraud and has repeatedly falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was “stolen”.

Evidence has suggested that fraud of any kind, including instances of non-citizens voting in the US, has been glancingly rare in the country.

In September, the Supreme Court rejected a bid from Trump to restrict mail ballot procedures before the midterm election.

When European football’s governing body announced the schedule for its upcoming Nations League competition in February, one fixture became an instant point of contention.

The Republic of Ireland and Israel were allocated the same group in League B of the UEFA Nations League 2026-27, provoking strong opposition from Irish fans, footballers and celebrities due to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. It also led to calls for a boycott of the fixture regardless of the consequences.

Seven months on, the Ireland vs Israel game is expected to be played as scheduled but amid vociferous criticism, louder calls for Irish football officials not to send a team to the game and bitter Israeli responses to the backlash.

What’s happening between Ireland and Israel?

They will play two matches in the space of eight days amid tense political relations  and in the face of increasing opposition from the Irish public.

The fixtures will be played on a home-and-away basis, with Ireland “hosting” its home leg in Debrecen, Hungary, on Sunday, September 27. Israel’s “home” match will be played in Serbia on October 4.

Why does Ireland have to play against Israel?

Ireland and Israel are members of UEFA, European football’s governing body. As UEFA members, and in order to progress to the top tier of European football competitions and improve their rankings in international football, both nations participate in UEFA-run tournaments.

The UEFA Nations League pits closely ranked nations against each other in groups, where all teams face each other twice in round-robin-style matches.

Ireland and Israel were drawn together in Group B3 along with Austria and Kosovo.

Who is leading the calls to boycott the Ireland vs Israel match?

Ever since the fixture was first confirmed on February 12, the Football Association of Ireland has been under pressure to boycott the matches due to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and Ireland’s status as a Palestine ally.

In May, leading Irish footballers joined celebrities in a campaign by Irish Sport for Palestine, urging Ireland to boycott the match against Israel. A United Nations inquiry confirmed in June 2025 that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza.

The campaign group says Israel has breached UEFA and FIFA statutes by allowing teams to play on occupied Palestinian land and should be stripped of its membership at both football bodies.

Last November, 93 percent of FAI members voted for its leadership to pressure UEFA to suspend Israel under those statutes, a mandate campaigners say the Irish governing body should “respect and represent”.

The letter, entitled “Stop the Game”, was signed by League of Ireland players, former men’s coach Brian Kerr and twice women’s player of the year Louise Quinn.

The letter includes a statement from Shamrock Rovers captain and Professional Footballers’ Association of Ireland (PFA) chair, Roberto Lopes.

International rights organisations have also called on UEFA and FIFA to exclude Israel from its competitions.

“It’s unconscionable that Israel will participate despite clear evidence that Israel’s football association continues to support illegal settlements,” Amnesty International said in a statement.

“When rules are broken, when occupation, apartheid and genocide are ongoing, we cannot look the other way,” it added.

What have Ireland’s officials said about the match?

Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheal Martin gave a green light to the matches, citing the challenges of mixing sport and politics.

“We have been critics and have opposed very strongly Israeli government policy within Gaza in particular. We condemned the Hamas attack on Israel, which was absolutely horrific,” ‌‌the Taoiseach told The Irish Times.

“I think sport is an area that can be challenging when it crosses into the realm of politics.”

In February, FAI Chief Executive David Courell said the national team had no choice but ‌‌to ‌‌fulfil its obligations or risk harming the long-term sporting interests of Irish football, including potential disqualification from future competitions.

Last week, Ireland manager Heimir Hallgrimsson responded to the boycott calls, saying his team were not “playing with genocide”.

“We’re playing against genocide,” Hallgrimsson said.

What is the public sentiment in Ireland?

The rights groups calling for a boycott of the match have cited several public polls, run by local newspapers, footballers’ bodies and individuals online, which indicate that a vast majority are in favour of opting out of the Nations League fixtures.

A poll by the PFA in February showed that 63 percent of those surveyed did not want Ireland to play the fixtures. A similar poll by the Irish Mirror newspaper indicated that 71 percent of the public would support the FAI if they refused to play the game.

Bohemian FC, an Irish football club with a strong pro-Palestine stance, have thrown their weight behind the calls for a boycott and have urged the FAI to call off their participation.

Bohemian’s Director of Football Pat Fenlon believes it is up to the FAI to “take a stand for what’s happening in Gaza”.

“What an opportunity it would be to be the first country to stand up and say this is totally wrong,” Fenlon told Irish Sport for Palestine.

“The game shouldn’t be played,” he said.

According to officials at the club, the Irish public is aware of the potential consequences but believe that boycotting is “the right thing to do”.

“It is not acceptable to put a price on standing up for what is right and in solidarity with the Palestinian people,” the club’s communications director Luke O’Rodrian told Al Jazeera.

He accused the FAI of showing “sheer cowardice”.

O’Rodrian said the boycott calls have been supported by trade unions representing workers, particularly those employed by the FAI, the PFA and the Irish Football Supporters Partnership, who represent Ireland’s football supporters.

In the country’s political sphere, Mary Lou McDonald, leader of Ireland’s main opposition party Sinn Fein, has also called for the FAI to “do the right thing by its players” by telling them not to take the field.

How did Israel respond?

The Israeli FA responded to Hallgrimsson’s statement on Monday by saying: “We are not playing with ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity; we’re playing against the coach who embodies them”.

Martin defended Hallgrimsson, describing Israel’s remarks as “unacceptable”, adding that “Israel can’t keep denying what the world knows”.

Why are the matches being played in Hungary and Serbia?

The first leg of the fixture will be held at the Nagyerdei Stadion in Debrecen, Hungary, and the second, which is Ireland’s “home” game, will be played at the TSC Arena in Backa Topola, Serbia.

Israel has not played an international fixture at home since September 2023 as it has been barred by UEFA from hosting teams due to security concerns.

While the October 4 fixture was scheduled to be held in Dublin, the FAI moved it following the protests and boycott calls. That game will be played behind closed doors.

Irish state broadcaster RTE, which ‌‌has ‌‌contractual obligations to show the games, will provide stripped-back coverage.

There will be no studio presentation or punditry and commentary will be taken from the international feed. RTE has not taken advertising or sponsorship around either game.

What would happen if Ireland boycotted the match?

UEFA does not have a fixed fine for refusing to play a Nations League match, and forfeiting teams could face a mix of fines, point penalties and forfeitures.

Officials at Bohemian FC pointed towards a recent report in the Irish Examiner newspaper, which highlighted that the punishment given to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia when they refused to fulfil recent UEFA fixtures against Belarus was a 3-0 walkover and, in one case, a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,684).

O’Rodrian said there was “real anger” among grassroots towards the FAI.

“The FAI exaggerated the potential consequences to force their delegates to vote in favour of proceeding with fulfilling these fixtures,” he said.

Meanwhile, Bohemians’ Director of Football Fenlon believed such a stance would always come at a cost.

“[They are] talking about losing money, about losing points and punishment, but we’re talking about more than 20,000 children killed [in Gaza],” he said.

“There will be a cost. Stand on the right side. We shouldn’t be playing Israel in anything.”

KATIE Price has plugged a questionable weight-loss jab – that’s ‘not intended for human use’.

The former glamour model, 48, is championing the injectable which is not approved in the UK.

She wrote on X: “Guys, I have started my peptide journey with @supreme_cbd and this is a great offer to start on! £40. Wow that’s brilliant.”

Katie continued: “I’m loving these peptides.”

She then added a discount code, confirming, “If you want to lose weight.”

Concerned fans commented: “What Katie? Why?”

NIGHT OUT

Katie Price puts on a brave face as she celebrate pals engagement after Lee split

surgery woes

Dane Bowers in hospital as he tells fans about ‘complications’ after surgery

A second worried user pointed out: “Commented this on the post but surprisingly got nothing back, so I’ll try with you… ‘not for human consumption?’”

Another bemused fan queried: “Why would you be on a peptides, there’s f*** all on you?”

Tesamorelin is legal to possess in the UK for scientific research but it is not authorised for human consumption in the UK.

It is legal to buy, possess and sell tesamorelin in the UK strictly for in-vitro laboratory research and scientific investigation.

However, it is not a licensed human medicine in the UK and is not approved by the MHRA for clinical use.

It cannot legally be marketed, sold or labelled for human consumption, therapeutic treatment or veterinary applications and is licensed in the US for people with HIV-associated lipodystrophy.

In June, she admitted her weight had plummeted due to “stress” after her estranged husband Lee Andrews was first arrested in Dubai.

The mum-of-five recently shared a health update on son Harvey as he continues his fat jab journey.

She previously shared her concerns over her 24-year-old son’s health after revealing he weighs 30st.

Harvey, who lives with Prader Willi Syndrome, blindness and autism, started taking fat jab Mounjaro earlier this month.

Katie revealed that Harvey’s BMI is double that of someone classed as obese – and also recently said on her podcast that he had been taking fat jab Mounjaro for nearly a month.

In August, the terrified mum said she feared Harvey would suffer a heart attack.

It comes after she ended her marriage to Lee Andrews, 43.

The model appeared on Good Morning Britain earlier this week and admitted she’d had enough of Lee’s lies.

The final straw came when she discovered a crypto account he claimed contained £37m had just £2.20 in it.

Meanwhile, Lee said that he hasn’t “pulled the wool over anyone’s eyes” nor has he “thrown Katie under the bus”.

Big Brother viewers have rallied behind the reality star after she was labelled ‘disrespectful’

Big Brother fans have rushed to defend a controversial contestant amid online backlash.

American housemate Johanne, 44, was labelled ‘disrespectful’ after she walked into the storage room while Omar was praying towards the end of Wednesday night’s episode of the ITV series. She began searching for a drink, apparently unaware of what he was doing.

Once Johanne realised, she apologised and left the room. She later apologised to Omar again, explaining that she had no idea he was praying. While some viewers criticised the interruption, others argued it was a genuine mistake and questioned whether Omar had been given enough privacy in the shared house.

“Omar should have let them know he was going in to pray you could tell she genuinely didn’t know #bbuk,” one viewer wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Another suggested: “I do think Omar should probably have a more private place to pray though how are all housemates going to know #bbuk.”

The encounter nevertheless left some fans cringing. As OK! reports, one posted: “I’ve never gotten worse second hand embarrassment in my life #bbuk.” A second wrote: “Stop that was so awkward poor Omar #BBUK.”

Others took a harsher view of Johanne’s behaviour. One wrote: “Wow Joanne is so disrespectful my lord. #bbuk.” Another added: “Joanne interrupting Omar praying? ! Holy s*** that’s incredibly disrespectful #BBUK.”

The debate came just four days after the new contestants moved into the house, with tensions already emerging. Tonight’s episode also saw Charlotte, who is an amputee, and Rochelle at the centre of the drama after Rochelle revealed she had long had a phobia of people with limb differences.

Meanwhile, Millie, Pauline and Rochelle were confirmed as the housemates facing the series’ first eviction.

The trio had been offered a lifeline if they could identify Big Brother’s moles, Tays and Philip. All three failed to expose the undercover housemates, leaving them facing the public vote.

Voting is now open for Friday’s (September 18) eviction, with viewers asked to choose the housemate they want to leave.

The evicted contestant will then join presenters AJ Odudu and Will Best for a live interview.

Big Brother is available to stream on ITVX